One of the questions
which arose for consideration before the learned Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal
was as to whether the vehicle in question was insured with the
appellant-Insurance Company or not.

It was contended that
Truck No. HR-03 1213 was insured and not the Truck No. HR-03 1215. Respondent
Nos. 5 and 6 have filed a counter affidavit before us annexing therewith the
xerox copy of the Cover Note. From a perusal it appears that the truck in
question, namely, Truck No. HR-03 1215 was insured with the appellant. It also
appears from the Award of the learned Tribunal that appellant before us had
filed a separate written statement. Admittedly the contention raised herein had
not ...2/- -2- been raised before the Tribunal. The High Court, in that view
of the matter, refused to go into such contention and, in our opinion, rightly.

The second contention
raised by the learned counsel that the claim petition filed under Section 166
and Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was not maintainable. Learned
counsel may be correct, but, from a perusal of the Award of the learned
Tribunal it appears that it proceeded on the basis that the claim petition was
filed under Section 166 of the Act and not under Section 163A thereof. Only
because the claimant has mentioned both the aforementioned provisions, the same
would not warrant our interference, if the correct procedure for disposal of
the claim petitions have been followed. We are, therefore, not inclined to
interfere with the Award as also with the impugned judgment of the High Court.